• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Logo of jnmaLink to Publisher's site
J Natl Med Assoc. Dec 2001; 93(12 Suppl): 29S–34S.
PMCID: PMC2719996

Evaluation of ethnic minorities and gender effects in clinical trials: opportunities lost and rediscovered.

Abstract

Recent recognition has been given to the notion of demonstrating a beneficial effect of randomly allocated interventions utilized in controlled clinical trials to women and ethnic minorities. However, despite National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines on the inclusion of ethnic minorities and women into these studies, clinical trial investigators continue to suffer from an inability to persuasively reach conclusions about the intervention effect in these subgroups. Although a major factor in this limitation has been the inability to recruit large numbers of these patients into controlled clinical trials, an additional dilemma has been the clinical trial community's well demonstrated inability to draw reliable conclusions from the relevant subgroup analyses. As currently designed in clinical trials, subgroup analyses with neither good prospective planning nor concern for the multiplicity of type I error that accompanies the testing of multiple hypotheses are appropriately relegated to exploratory analyses which merely raise questions, not answer them. This article demonstrates that taking advantage of: (a) prospective, subgroup specific endpoint selection; (b) prospective, subgroup specific endpoint event rates; (c) prospective, subgroup specific therapy efficacy, and (d) prospective, subgroup specific nonuniform type I error levels will fortify a subgroup analysis. Thus, the tools traditionally available to clinical trialists, when wielded with renewed vigor and innovation, in concert with energetic, focused recruitment efforts can lead to a confirmatory analysis with appropriate statistical rigor for the effect of the randomly allocated intervention in these important demographic subgroups.

Full text

Full text is available as a scanned copy of the original print version. Get a printable copy (PDF file) of the complete article (881K), or click on a page image below to browse page by page. Links to PubMed are also available for Selected References.

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Yusuf S, Wittes J, Probstfield J, Tyroler HA. Analysis and interpretation of treatment effects in subgroups of patients in randomized clinical trials. JAMA. 1991 Jul 3;266(1):93–98. [PubMed]
  • Moyé LA. P-value interpretation and alpha allocation in clinical trials. Ann Epidemiol. 1998 Aug;8(6):351–357. [PubMed]
  • Shavers VL, Lynch CF, Burmeister LF. Knowledge of the Tuskegee study and its impact on the willingness to participate in medical research studies. J Natl Med Assoc. 2000 Dec;92(12):563–572. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Feinstein AR. The problem of cogent subgroups: a clinicostatistical tragedy. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998 Apr;51(4):297–299. [PubMed]
  • Packer M, O'Connor CM, Ghali JK, Pressler ML, Carson PE, Belkin RN, Miller AB, Neuberg GW, Frid D, Wertheimer JH, et al. Effect of amlodipine on morbidity and mortality in severe chronic heart failure. Prospective Randomized Amlodipine Survival Evaluation Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1996 Oct 10;335(15):1107–1114. [PubMed]

Articles from Journal of the National Medical Association are provided here courtesy of National Medical Association

Formats:

Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...

Links

  • PubMed
    PubMed
    PubMed citations for these articles

Recent Activity

    Your browsing activity is empty.

    Activity recording is turned off.

    Turn recording back on

    See more...